Re: What`s wrong with JFS configuration?

On 25-Apr-07, at 4:54 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:

> Paweł Gruszczyński wrote:
>> To test I use pgBench with default database schema, run for 25,
>> 50, 75 users at one time. Every test I run 5 time to take average.
>> Unfortunetly my result shows that ext is fastest, ext3 and jfs are
>> very simillar. I can understand that ext2 without jurnaling is
>> faster than ext3, it is said that jfs is 40 - 60% faster. I cant
>> see the difference. Part of My results: (transaction type |
>> scaling factor | num of clients | tpl | num on transactions | tps
>> including connection time | tps excliding connection time)
>> EXT2:
>> TPC-B (sort of),50,75,13,975|975,338.286682,358.855582
>> ...
>> Can anyone tell me what`s wrong with my test? Or maybe it is normal?
>
> With a scaling factor of 50, your database size is ~ 1 GB, which
> fits comfortably in your RAM. You're not exercising your drives or
> filesystem much. Assuming you haven't disabled fsync, the
> performance of that test is bound by the speed your drives can
> flush WAL commit records to disk.
>
> I wouldn't expect the filesystem to make a big difference anyway,
> but you'll see..

If you really believe that jfs is 40 -60% faster ( which I highly
doubt ) you should see this by simply reading/writing a very large
file (2x your memory size) with dd .

Just curious but what data do you have that suggests this 40-60%
number ?

Dave
>
> --
> Heikki Linnakangas
> EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate